Alarmists Pull Out All the Stops

Big marches, emotional speeches and new reports about climate change are part of the big push to achieve a new climate treaty in Paris next year.

Among the plethora of misinformation about global warming is a new report, Better Growth, Better Climate, by The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.

Impressive name, but merely a cover for climate alarmists.

The commission isn’t global, but merely sponsored by seven countries — Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and the UK. The chair is Felipe Calderon, former President of Mexico, with Nicolas Stern, of the highly controversial, and some say discredited, Stern Review, as co-chair.

The underlying premiss of the report is that Climate Change must be stopped by cutting CO2 emissions.

The report tries to show that the world can cut CO2 emissions while achieving economic growth: Fossil fuels can be eliminated and replaced with renewables at no increase in cost and with benefits to humanity.

Of course, the world must conform to what these people say we must do, which is always the problem with leftist theology.

Cover of Report by Global Commission on the Economy and Climate 2014
Cover of Report by Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, 2014

One message is that cities must be constructed around mass transit. This requires mixed use with people forced to live around mass transit stations. Suburban sprawl must be avoided at all cost. It infers that the American model of suburbia is a threat to mankind, and that the automobile is a weapon against humanity.

The report calls for setting a price on carbon to make renewables seem more economically competitive. This, of course, means higher electricity costs for people, but it will supposedly save them from climate change.

The war on coal goes global, without any recognition that new Ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants produce cheap electricity with much lower emissions of all types, actually almost as low as emissions from natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants … but NGCC power plants are also ultimately a threat because they emit CO2.

Here are the 10 action plans proposed by this report.

  1. Accelerate low-carbon transformation by integrating climate into core economic decision-making processes
  2. Enter into a strong, lasting and equitable international climate agreement
  3. Phase out subsidies for fossil fuels and agricultural inputs, and incentives for urban sprawl
  4. Introduce strong, predictable carbon prices
  5. Substantially reduce capital costs for low-carbon infrastructure investments
  6. Scale up innovation in key low-carbon and climate-resilient technologies
  7. Make connected and compact cities the preferred form of urban development
  8. Stop deforestation of natural forests by 2030
  9. Restore at least 500 million hectares of lost or degraded forests and agricultural lands
  10. Accelerate the shift away from polluting coal-fired power generation

It’s impossible in a short article to cover all these ten items, but here are a few comments.

Item 1 infers that government should dictate how people live. Many things people do, such as driving cars, eating meat, or living where and how they want, affect climate.

It reminds me of the policy actually proposed by a member of the UK parliament to give a carbon debit card to all UK citizens.

“Each time a person did something, the card would be debited for the carbon usage resulting from the transaction. Filling the gas tank would debit the card for the CO2 caused by the amount of gasoline purchased. Lamb chops would debit the card for the green house gasses caused by sheep. Buying an airplane ticket would debit the card for the CO2 released by the jet engines.”

In essence, government would control what people do.

Item 2 would be Kyoto redux, locking the US into committing national suicide while other countries would likely cheat. It would force the US to cut per capita emissions from 16.6 tons per person to 2.3 tons by 2050, an impossible task without destroying the US economy. The last time the US had per capita emissions of 2.3 tons was in 1900.

How many cars, airplanes, refrigerators and air conditioning units did the US have in 1900?

Virtually none. How do Americans cut CO2 emissions 80% without eliminating these necessities?

CO2 emissions with 80% cut
CO2 emissions with 80% cut

With respect to item 3, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. The report claims fossil fuel subsidies amount to $600 billion per year, but nowhere in the report does it itemize or identify the subsidies, except that countries, such as Venezuela, subsidize the use of gasoline by charging 6 cents per gallon.

The report claims fossil fuels are subsidized, but doesn’t say how.

With respect to item 8, the forested area in the United States is the same as it was in 1900, while population has increased by over 400%. There’s no need to increase forested area in the United States, unless it is to return it to the way it was when the Pilgrims arrived.

Item 10 is merely a continuation of the war on coal, even though coal is the lowest cost method for generating electricity in most undeveloped countries around the world. And many of these poor countries have substantial deposits of coal. (India is an exception.) It asks that export credit agencies restrict loans for building coal-fired power plants in developing countries.

The war on coal deprives poor people, such as in Africa, of electricity for heating and cooking, forcing them to continue to use dung and wood with resulting damage to their health. Burning wood also contributes to deforestation, so cheap electricity produced by coal-fired power plants would help stop deforestation.

Another major fallacy of the report is that it repeatedly claims that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) works. This is a flagrant error. No one has demonstrated that sequestration will keep billions of tons of liquid CO2 under high pressure, locked-up, underground for centuries.

There are many other items in the report that should be of concern to all who live in freedom.

For example, the report says governments should promote a shift in diet from meats.
And it distorts the truth by using the EIA’s Levelized Cost of Electricity for coal that includes a charge for carbon. This artificially increases the cost of electricity from coal-fired power plants, which is then used in an attempt to demonstrate that solar and wind are competitive with coal.

Reports like this, and there have been many before it, try to gin up support for cutting CO2 emissions.

They are long on rhetoric and short on objective commentary and facts.

This report’s rhetoric says, “Unchecked emissions from coal, oil and natural gas represent a potentially grave risk to future generations.”

But their proposed cure; curtailing freedom, reducing economic growth, and condemning people to live in poverty, is hardly the answer, and is likely to present an even greater risk to future generations … especially if global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions.

* * * * * *

These articles can be delivered directly to your mailbox. Subscribe by clicking below the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription, and entering your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know someone who would be interested in these articles you can send him/her a link to the article and suggest he/she subscribes by clicking on the email subscription link under the picture on the right side of the page, and entering their email address.

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

0 thoughts on “Alarmists Pull Out All the Stops

  1. Donn: always enjoy your comments.

    We humans, now at the end of a couple 100 years since the Industrial
    Revolution, find ourselves at a point where we have manipulated our planet and its resources (millions – billions – of years of fossil energy accumulation – and most of that useage (waste?) in the last 50 years) to the point of no return. Energy, especially oil, has allowed and encouraged an explosion of birth rates (among a plethora other unintended consequences)…well past carrying capacity. The solution I see as the most acceptable is for Silicon Valley to develop another app.
    Hum… how screwed are we??

    • Thanks for your comments.
      Not sure how oil has caused the poverty that’s killing millions in Africa.
      Or why, if fossil fuels are the problem, underdeveloped countries have higher birthrates than developed countries.
      But maybe Apple will have an app that solves all our problems.

    • The far-left war on freedom and prosperity is profoundly evil. The primary danger to humanity is the threat of global totalitarian impulses and overreach served up by those who claim Anthropogenic climate change. The only rational response is to resist at all hazard those who strive to dictate to all, how the world lives.

      • This is typical of comments made by people who haven’t taken the time to do their homework. They always fall back on personal attacks.
        I left this comment for all to see to demonstrate how some people respond to factual information.

  2. Excellent article, science is a fact.
    If you happen on it the movie Cowspirecy really takes the heat off CO2. They make a compelling case for methane and agribusiness being several factors more potent in temp rises. Not pushing any film but if the facts add up it should help in halting cap and trade nonsense.

  3. Each on of the points is a major socio-political change in strategy. If that is what it takes to make the world the way the eco-green want it, then they won’t see it in their grandchildren’s lifetime.

    The eco-green, alarmist position is one of struggle, the Trotskyite concept of constant revolution. There is no endpoint, there is only constant struggle against Man and The Man. The future has no pleasant picnic in a park, just swarms of protesters with red flags raging down the streets, calling out against the suppression and oppression of someone other than them, and demanding that those who have more than they do give up their excess to people further down the ladder than the protesters (who have no need to give their stuff, as they, unlike others, have earned the right to keep their goodies).

    Bureaucrats, living the Life large and bouncy.

  4. We can’t pump all that carbon into the atmosphere without something eventually happening.

    We may disagree about exactly what will happen (heating Vs cooling), but for sure, something is going to happen.

    And if we don’t know exactly how bad this “something” is going to be, doesn’t it make sense to stop pumping all that carbon into our air?

    It’s a bit like kicking a dog. You know it’s going to do something in response to your unwelcome kicking, but you have absolutely no idea what it will be. So why do it.

    Politicians and those controlling the mega wealth are the only ones who can implement appropriate action, but they won’t. Their agendas and other interests lure them away from listening to advice from the experts.

    This cartoon looks at that aspect . . . .

    http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/editorial-political/#jp-carousel-775

    Cheers
    Mick

    • You may want to do additional research. The IPCC, has said the world MUST cut CO2 emissions 50%, while President Obama and the EPA have said the US MUST cut CO2 emissions 80% by 2050 or the disaster CAN’T be avoided. Anything less than that doesn’t help. Therefore cutting CO2 emissions by small amounts won’t avoid the catastrophe. In fact, efforts to cut CO2 emissions by any amount can do a great deal of harm, such as the EPA’s proposed rule, issued in June of this year, to control CO2 emissions.
      By the way, it’s so called deniers who are usually threatened for execution.

  5. The agenda of the environmental industry is to use government to subsidize investment and finance its agenda. Without the “free” money supplied by subsidies and regulations crony capitalism goes away very quickly and society pursues competitive economic activity. As an example, if “carbon pollution” was real and massive reductions were necessary the one proven technical and economic solution, nuclear energy, would be the answer. But it’s not acceptable to the environmental industry because it is capital intensive and requires extensive technical expertise both of which are unattainable by them.

    Until our political system attracts and maintains a majority of elected officials who comprehend and support private enterprise including the use of free market capital our society will continue tilting at windmills and make the less financially secure in society pay for their totalitarianism.

  6. Frankly.. Based on the rate of warming for the past two decades (statistically Zero) . and the IPCC s’ Elimination of any likely Catastrophic consequences (by 2100 IPCCAR5 chap 12). I really do not care if C02 has ANY warming effect or contribution to a Warming that has been ongoing since the Maunder Minimum (1650 to 1715).
    On the contrary. I hope my offspring and dependents enjoy a 21st Century Optimum.

    On the other hand, I have become Deeply concerned with placing Authority over Trace Gasses Necessary to Life in the hands of Unelected Bureaucrats at the EPA.

    I am surprised this issue is Not discussed. Given the “mission creep” revelations about the NSA recently.

    Enjoyed the article . Continue to Combat Fear mongering and Superstition fostered by these Hungry bureaucrats.

    • Thanks for your comments. Having unelected bureaucrats, such as in the EPA, control our energy sources and usage is extremely harmful for all Americans.

  7. For those who are alarmed by the temperature rise since 1880 when it was colder, CO2 levels were lower, and much of the world was starving; one needs to put the change in temperature in perspective on a normal temperature plot, not one showing hundredths of a degree.
    Look at this temperature plot and explain the basis for alarm alarm:
    http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294

    Furthermore the current CO2 level is circa 400 ppm or 0.04% of the atmosphere and is not that high from a historical viewpoint.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/
    Princeton’s Dr. Happer, who has authored 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, explained in Senate testimony in 2009 that the Earth is currently in a ‘CO2 ‘famine.’ Happer explained to Congress: ”Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind…’CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning,” Happer added.
    “Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee. “Earth was just fine in those times,” Happer added. “The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started,” Happer explained.

    Finally a thoughtful individual needs to wonder why the the temperature has remained steady over the last 18 years while CO2 levels continue to rise. The correlation has been broken and recent studies have debunked the claim that the heat is now hiding in the Ocean.

    FYI we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, not pure carbon; and our trees, agriculture, supply of food is thriving on the abundance of “food”.

    CO2 is not a pollutant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*